OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

emergency message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [emergency] Fwd: [CAP] Re: [emergency-comment] Re: CAP and attribute-free encodings...


On Mar 23, 2004, at 8:43 PM, Art Botterell wrote:

> While I've maintained a relationship with the pre-existing community 
> that laid the groundwork for CAP, I've made a concerted effort not to 
> drag internal TC disagreements out into that public forum, and to 
> express only my understanding of the TC's conclusions and in 
> appropriately tentative and open-ended terms.

Putting on my Chair hat, this is why I replied to this email Your 
"understanding of the TC's conclusions" was not an accurate 
recollection of the events, so I provided additional information about 
what happened (or didn't), along with links as to what did happen. I 
will address how I conveyed my personal views inline below...

> But for our Chair to publicly criticize our approved Committee Draft 
> (see below)... saying things like "we did the wrong thing by taking 
> the all attribute approach"

Which is why I put IMHO - to further signify that this was my view, 
even though I have Chair concerns with it. Specifically, as Bob's email 
points out, it is a view that is very hard to defend. Things/decisions 
that are hard to defined become issues for the TC and can impact 
adoption.

> and "there is not enough 'specification' there to do that in a way 
> that supports the vary nature of what CAP is suppose to support"... 
> and to say these things "ex officio," explicitly signing himself as TC 
> Chair...

I really do not know how to respond to this other than to point out 
that this talks to, as detailed in a separate email, that CAP is not 
easy to defend as a "protocol", and therefore this statement is nothing 
more than one based on that fact. Let's get really pure about it and 
look at the computer science definition of protocol, which can be found 
on Dictionary.com, which states:

"A standard procedure for regulating data transmission between 
computers."

While CAP regulates the data, it does nothing to address its 
transmission (insert all the debates about "transport" and "how to 
implement" here).

> and to do it right in the middle of a ballot period and immediately 
> prior to the public launch of CAP should that ballot pass... all that 
> strikes me as as a shocking failure of judgement and leadership, as 
> potentially damaging both to the CAP effort and to OASIS's 
> credibility, and as just plain wrong.
>
> Allen, I really think you ought to consider whether it might be time 
> for you to assume a different role.

This TC, like any standards committee, is an open forum to discuss 
topics as long as those discussions pertain to the task at hand. The 
comments provided, which I would be more than happy to technically 
defend, are put forth with the intension to try and improve CAP. At no 
time do I say or even imply that I am talking about changing 1.0 in 
mid-stride - we had that vote. In fact, putting my Chair hat on, these 
comments would not be addressed until "future version" whatever version 
identifier that maybe.

Additionally, we should never discourage comments at any time. Even if 
comments, no matter who they came from, changed the outcome of the vote 
(NOT my intension btw), then its not because someone took the time to 
submit comments, but because the spec was not adequately defended or 
defendable. If what we put out can not take and appropriately 
handle/stand up to comments and/or criticism, then that is a reflection 
of our work - not the commenter.

Allen

--
R. Allen Wyke
Chair, OASIS Emergency Management TC
emergency-tc@earthlink.net



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]